Your not getting an answer may well be quite well documented. But it doesn’t mean that any perceptible action by God is always going to be part of the lawful side of nature. That would pretty much mean anything really miraculous is something that nobody could see or notice.
This is not how that word (i.e., “miraculous”) is used on this list, or most any list I’ve ever seen.
They would still be perceptible as violations of natural laws. We had no problem discerning the precession in Mercury’s orbit, even though it violated natural laws as described by Newton. If there were a pillar of fire wandering around the desert, I’m pretty sure people would notice. If amputees were healed 100% of the time after a specific prayer, people would be able to see it happening.
Well, now I don’t know which side of the discussion you are taking. My issue was with this quote where you characterized what Theists thought:
I think, Mr. T., that your “…many theists have told me that God wouldn’t make his actions known so that we wouldn’t be forced believe in God…” are investing in an apologia more than they are definiting the term “miraculous”.
While they may deeply believe this is why miracles are rarely seen in today’s age, I don’t believe we can use this as a strict definition for a miracle.
In fact, for the ardent apologists, these are not mutually exclusive ideas. He can still do miraculous things and he can make them more subtle than most can detect.
My issue is that theists have defined the supernatural as imperceptible which is why it can’t be included in science. It isn’t as if scientists have all of these obvious and easily measurable products of the supernatural, but then choose to just ignore them. You can’t blame science for not including the supernatural when those who profess a belief in the supernatural can not produce a testable hypothesis for the actions of the supernatural.
George, that accusation is false. Taq only commented on arguments and answers. He made no statement there about what anyone thought.
This is not true. You are confusing an apologia with a definition. If you asked a Theist what makes a miracle a “miraculous thing”, they would say it is something that cannot be explained by any known natural means.
If you ask them if miracles happen in today’s world, they may or may not say - God hides these miracles.
But it is not the hiding of them that makes them miracles. Follow?
First off, you will see that I didn’t include the word “miracle” anywhere in my post.
However, using that definition 400 years ago, the list of “miraculous things” would have included infectious diseases and lightning.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:628, topic:36256”]
If you ask them if miracles happen in today’s world, they may or may not say - God hides these miracles.
But it is not the hiding of them that makes them miracles. Follow?
[/quote]
Again, this doesn’t address what I was bringing up. People keep saying that science purposefully excludes supernatural explanations. What I am saying is that there are no supernatural scientific explanations to exclude.
What is a supernatural scientific explanation?
It would be a testable and falsifiable hypothesis dealing with the actions of the supernatural.
OK, so how would you control for God in your experiments?
I’m not the one who wants supernatural explanations to be considered in scientific investigations. You are asking the wrong person.
Well… dear sir … if you are going to say it that way, I have to agree!
There are no “supernatural” scientific events; that would be a marvelous oxymoron!
It isn’t an oxymoron. If singing a specific incantation instantly healed an amputee 100% of the time, that would be a scientific event which could be studied by science. I see no reason why the supernatural could not be detected by scientific means.
Yes, I suppose a Scientist could make all sorts of observations…
How many times did it happen in a month?
How long did the process take?
In which locations did it happen?
But if it is truly miraculous, then one or the other cannot occur:
or
Neither am I. As far as I’m concerned, the supernatural can’t be explored in scientific experiments. I think it’s the ID people who want to expand science to include the supernatural.
If it is any consolation to anyone who put so much effort into this thread, I learned about many things I have never even heard of before. It has been an eye opener for me.
Welcome, Jason. I’ve hung around here a while, and learn something new almost every day. Some come and go, but a great group to hang out with. Even the occasional grouch.
Thank you for the welcome.
My formal education consists of me pretending to pay attention in high school
and them pretending my diploma actually meant something. I think I will be learning MANY new things
every day.
I am able to follow along with even the more technical conversations…so I’m pretty excited about being here. I just won’t be able to contribute other than an odd question here or there.
I like your attitude. So many come here knowing next to nothing but talk as if they know everything.
I’m just thankful that I can find people who are willing to share knowledge they may have spent a lifetime acquiring.
Sometimes my weakness works for me. I have to read everything carefully. I don’t formulate a reply as I am reading, I can’t skim over anything because I already know where this post is going.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.